JUDGMENT 1. The writ petitioners herein, are before this Court praying for appropriate orders for initiation of disciplinary action against the officers of the respondent Corporation in connection with the promotions that had been made from Assistant (SG) (W-A) to Junior Executive Supervisor (S-1) conducted by the respondent No. 5 (DPC) on 21.02.2012 to 23.02.2012 w.e.f. 01.01.2012 and further for setting aside the impugned enquiry report submitted by the respondent No. 6 (CVO) and for further direction to direct the respondent No. 8 (CVC) institute an impartial inquiry. 2. The grievance of the petitioner Union, which is stated to be a Federation of NEEPCO Employees, is that the respondent NEEPCO had constituted a Departmental Promotion Committee to fill up 35 vacancies by promotion, from the post of Assistant (SG) (W-A) to Junior Executive Supervisor (S-1) and in this exercise 76 employees holding the post of Assistant (SG) (W-A) were called for interview, out of which 27 candidates were declared successful and recommended for promotion. However, it is alleged that contrary to the roster which had earmarked 17 posts for General candidates and 18 for Schedule Caste candidates, the respondent had indulged in large-scale malpractice and manipulation in the promotion process in total disregard to fairness and transparency. 3. Mr. H.L. Shangreiso, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. P. Shati, learned counsel for the petitioner, firstly submits that the fundamental grievance of the writ petitioner is that there has been a manipulation by the respondent NEEPCO in the said selection, which is apparent from the assessment sheets, inasmuch as, candidates securing lesser marks were promoted by denying other meritorious candidates and that some who had failed, were given promotions illegally. The learned Senior counsel submits that these discrepancies came to the notice of the petitioner Union, when they had received a Note Sheet maintained by the respondent No. 5, Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) as well as an Assessment Sheet for promotion w.e.f. 01.01.2012, containing the list of successful and un-successful candidates in 2014 from the Executive Director (HR) while the said person was in service but, who had later expired in 2016. 4. 4. To substantiate his argument, the learned Senior counsel has referred to an Assessment Sheet dated 23.02.2012 (Page 39 of the writ petition) and submits that an examination of the Assessment Sheet which was received by the petitioner and the RTI reply which was provided by the respondents reflects that there is gross inconsistency. To illustrate this point, the learned senior counsel has taken this Court to the Note Sheets and also the recommendation which contains 27 names. It is submitted that, a comparison of 3 documents namely; the Assessment Sheet, the Recommended Panel for Promotion and the RTI reply giving the list of the persons who were accorded promotion, clearly show the discrepancies in the entire process of selection and promotion, as out of the 27 candidates, 19 were promoted and out of 19, 15 were lifted from the list of recommended candidates and out of 15, 6 candidates securing lesser marks were promoted by denying 6 more meritorious candidates, and that 4 candidates who were not recommended were promoted. 5. The learned Senior counsel submits that the petitioner Union on the malpractices as indicated above in its meeting on 09.12.2017, resolved to demand for an impartial inquiry by an independent authority and accordingly a Complaint Petition dated 11.12.2017, along with copies of the said documents as received of the DPC, were placed before the respondent No. 2, who on receipt of the same, requested the petitioner to disclose the source of information which was declined by the petitioner, but who however, informed him that they would fully cooperate and would give statements when an Inquiry Committee was constituted. It is submitted that the petitioner was then informed vide letter dated 06.07.2018, that the Vigilance Department had conducted an enquiry and found no anomalies or irregularities, which however was not found acceptable to the writ petitioner, who after receiving a copy of the enquiry report, requested that the CVO re-inquire and re-investigate into the matter. It is submitted that the petitioner was then informed vide letter dated 06.07.2018, that the Vigilance Department had conducted an enquiry and found no anomalies or irregularities, which however was not found acceptable to the writ petitioner, who after receiving a copy of the enquiry report, requested that the CVO re-inquire and re-investigate into the matter. The learned Senior counsel submits that though the matter thereafter was referred to the CVC, and it was observed that no further investigation was required, he asserts that the manner in which the respondent CVO conducted the enquiry, by relying solely on the version as well as the records provided by the respondent NEEPCO management, without independently examining the materials i.e. the copies of the recommendation and assessment sheets of the respondent DPC provided by the writ petitioner, was highly irresponsible and an abdication of its independent powers. 6. The learned Senior counsel submits that the respondent CVO mechanically hushed up the inquiry without hearing the writ petitioner, which has resulted in the violation of the principles of natural justice. On the delay in taking action against the perceived illegalities, the learned Senior counsel submits that the same is not deliberate and willful and even though this Court was approached only on 29.10.2020, it is due to the fact that the irregularities in the DPC, surfaced when one failed candidate brought up the issue, and thereafter the petitioner Union obtained the information under an RTI application dated 12.10.2017 and immediately filed the complaint thereafter. 7. In closing his submissions, the learned Senior counsel submits that the discrepancies are writ large as earlier illustrated, which has been amply demonstrated by the Assessment Sheets relied upon by the petitioner vis-à-vis, the one relied upon by respondent NEEPCO. As such, it is submitted notwithstanding the delay and the fact that the promotees have not been arrayed as parties, directions are called for from this Court for action to be taken against any erring officers found involved in the malpractice and corruption, which has occurred in connection with the said promotions. 8. Mr. V.K. Jindal, learned Senior counsel assisted by Ms. E. Marwein, learned counsel for the respondents, submits that the basis for alleging such malpractice by the petitioner Union is based on the documents annexed at Annexure-2 of the writ petition. 8. Mr. V.K. Jindal, learned Senior counsel assisted by Ms. E. Marwein, learned counsel for the respondents, submits that the basis for alleging such malpractice by the petitioner Union is based on the documents annexed at Annexure-2 of the writ petition. These documents it is submitted, are not final or authenticated copies, but are drafts and the correct final approved panel list and the Assessment Sheets are enclosed by the respondents at Annexure-A and B to the affidavit-in-opposition. As per this list, the learned Senior counsel submits the DPC recommended not 27 but 31 candidates. 9. It is also contended that the writ petitioners' claim is hopelessly delayed, as allegedly the writ petitioners had received copies of the recommendation and Assessment Sheets of the DPC in 2014, but waited for 3 years until the sources of the information namely; one Nagen Chandra Das was no longer in service and one Shri T. Kakoty who had expired in 2016, were no longer available, to lodge the protest on 11.02.2017, and even thereafter refused to reveal the sources of these documents, which were confidential in nature. It is submitted that the aforesaid complaint, was inquired into twice by the CVO and thereafter reviewed by the CVC, who saw no infirmity in the said reports. The allegations it is contended has no basis, as no irregularity was found in the process of the promotion, and therefore the filing of the writ petition for setting aside and quashing the inquiry report of 2018 submitted by the CVO, as well as the impugned letter dated 02.09.2020, and for directions to constitute an Inquiry Committee to consider the matter afresh is misplaced and untenable. 10. The learned Senior counsel also submits that the case is bad for mis-joinder of parties, as the CVO and CVC cannot be impleaded as parties as per the provisions contained in Section 15 of the Central Vigilance Act, 2003, for which a Misc. application had also been filed for striking them off as necessary parties. It is further submitted the promotions were conducted and granted in the year 2012 and the writ petition has only been filed in 2020, and the non-impleadment of the promotees who will be directly affected, in the event any adverse orders are passed, makes the case also bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. It is further submitted the promotions were conducted and granted in the year 2012 and the writ petition has only been filed in 2020, and the non-impleadment of the promotees who will be directly affected, in the event any adverse orders are passed, makes the case also bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. On these grounds the learned Senior counsel submits that the writ petition deserves to be dismissed with cost. 11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have given due consideration to the entire facts and circumstances of the case. The matter it is seen revolves on the alleged malpractice which the petitioner has sought to demonstrate by referring to the note sheets and assessment sheets which they have received as early as on 2014. In this regard, the facts that cannot be overlooked is that on these perceived illegalities, action was initiated by the petitioner only on 2017. Another factor that weighs heavy in the consideration of this case is that the impugned promotion process had taken place in 2012 and therefore in the long intervening period, persons who have been promoted have acquired vested rights, and even though the petitioner has submitted that no action is sought against the promotees, any adverse orders that may be passed will surely have consequential effects on them. Their non-impleadment in these proceedings by the petitioner is therefore a point that cannot be ignored. 12. The writ petitioner while seeking the relief amongst others, for appropriate consequential penal and disciplinary action against the erring officers if found involved in the alleged malpractice, is a prayer that is unspecific as the said officers who it is alleged to have indulged in the same, are also not party to these proceedings. 13. Allegations have been levelled by the petitioner against the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) of 2012 where the exercise of promotion by the DPC is questioned. The members of the said DPC have not been arrayed as parties by the petitioner, even though serious allegations of lack of transparency, manipulation, forgery, cheating have been made against them in the writ petition as also in rejoinder affidavit. 14. The members of the said DPC have not been arrayed as parties by the petitioner, even though serious allegations of lack of transparency, manipulation, forgery, cheating have been made against them in the writ petition as also in rejoinder affidavit. 14. The petitioner has however impleaded the Chief Vigilance Officer and Chief Vigilance Commissioner as party respondent seeking the quashment of the report of the CVO dated 19.07.2018, as well as the impugned letter dated 02.09.2020, wherein on the direction of the CVC the matter was reviewed and it was found that no further investigation was required. In this aspect also Section 15 of the Central Vigilance Act 2003 has provided: - '15. No Suit, prosecution or other legal proceeding shall lie against the Commission, the Central Vigilance Commissioner, any Vigilance Commissioner, the Secretary or against any staff of the Commission in respect of anything which is in good faith done or intended to be done under this Act.' Though the petitioner may feel aggrieved with the impugned report and letter, in view of the express provisions of the Act, no justification is there to implead these respondents, which clearly seems to have been made with the sole objective to exert undue pressure, which in the view of this Court, is irregular and does not put the petitioner in a good light. 15. This Court has also examined the Note Sheets and Assessment Sheets which has been produced/annexed by the parties. The Note Sheets and Assessment Sheets as annexed to the writ petition have been contested and disputed by the respondent as being not final or approved, and that the correct and final approved Note and Assessment Sheets are annexed at Annexure A and B to the affidavit-in-opposition. A perusal of the Note Sheet as annexed to the writ petition though seemingly appearing to be detailed with file notings made therein, alongwith the signature of a Deputy Manager dated 23.04.2012, its authenticity however, cannot be verified by this Court, as to whether the same is a draft as alleged or otherwise. With regard to the Assessment Sheet which was allegedly prepared on 23.02.2012, the same has clearly not been approved as the portion provided for the signature of approval to be put by the Deputy General Manager (P&A) is blank. With regard to the Assessment Sheet which was allegedly prepared on 23.02.2012, the same has clearly not been approved as the portion provided for the signature of approval to be put by the Deputy General Manager (P&A) is blank. In contrast, the Note Sheet said to be authentic and approved, as annexed by the respondents has been signed on 14.06.2012 and file notings made therein are dated 29.06.2012 and 04.07.2012. The Assessment Sheets appended thereto, are seen to have been approved by the said Deputy General Manager (P&A). These records which contain this sensitive information are confidential and have been marked as such, which however on comparison though dealing with the same issue are found to be inconsistent. This certainly raises questions as to the process that was adopted and the manner in which the records have been maintained. 16. Situated thus, this Court will therefore not place reliance on the Note Sheet and Assessment Sheet provided by the petitioner but will examine the issue raised by the petitioner, on the documents that have been placed by the respondent before this Court. As noted earlier 76 employees holding the post of Assistant (SG) (W-8) were called for interview for promotion to the post of Junior Executive Supervisor (S-1) against 35 vacancies (17 vacancies unreserved and 18 for SC). 31 candidates came out successful and as per the respondent, all the 31 candidates from the final approved panel list and Assessment Sheet were recommended for promotion. At this juncture it would be useful to revert to the RTI reply which had been provided by the respondent on the request for information by the petitioner wherein the name of the persons promoted from (W-8) to (S-1) w.e.f. from 01.01.2012 has been provided. A comparison of the Assessment Sheet and the RTI reply showing the persons who have been promoted, reveals that the promotion for 17 Un-reserved and for 2 Schedule Caste reserved post vacancies is in accordance with the order of recommendation or merit. However, with regard to the other promotions granted to the remaining persons, if the RTI reply is taken to be the correct chart, there appears to be inconsistencies, as the names of some persons who were not recommended for promotion as per the Assessment Sheet have found place in the list of employees promoted w.e.f., 01.01.2012. However, with regard to the other promotions granted to the remaining persons, if the RTI reply is taken to be the correct chart, there appears to be inconsistencies, as the names of some persons who were not recommended for promotion as per the Assessment Sheet have found place in the list of employees promoted w.e.f., 01.01.2012. In the note sheet signed on 14.06.2012, the approved panel list (Annexure-B to the affidavit-in-opposition), was put up for approval by the DPC, showing the list of 31 candidates recommended for promotion in order of merit. The approved panel list appears not to tally with the RTI reply, as the names of 6 persons appearing at Serial No. 21, 22, 23, 27, 28 and 29 who are shown recommended for promotion in the approved panel list, do not appear in the said RTI reply. 17. Another glaring point is the fact that 2 candidates belonging to Schedule Tribe category have been recommended as per the panel list for promotion, when by the statement of the respondents themselves, to fill up the 35 vacancies, the proportion was Un-reserved -17 and Schedule Caste -18. It is undisputed and stated on affidavit by the respondents that 17 Un-reserved and 2 (SC) were promoted that is, a total of 19 candidates against the recommendation of 31, as it appears there were no other Schedule Caste candidates who were recommended. In the view of this Court, the bone of contention therefore, is with regard to the remaining 12 posts, which the petitioner alleges promotions have been manipulated, and granted to undeserving persons. 18. From the materials available, though certain doubts are raised, it will not be possible for this Court to conclusively arrive at any decision that will justify re-opening of the entire matter, or to call for a review or a re-visit of the impugned promotion process. Firstly, the promotions have been granted and acted upon a decade ago, and there is no question of unsettling a settled position. The other factors, that go against the consideration of the prayer of the petitioner is the non-joinder and mis-joinder of parties which by itself disables the writ petition, notwithstanding the fact, that the writ petitioner has submitted that they are not seeking to quash the promotion order dated 04.07.2012. The other factors, that go against the consideration of the prayer of the petitioner is the non-joinder and mis-joinder of parties which by itself disables the writ petition, notwithstanding the fact, that the writ petitioner has submitted that they are not seeking to quash the promotion order dated 04.07.2012. Another aspect, that cannot be ignored is that the matter was looked into by the CVO twice and also put up before the CVC, who are independent authorities to look into such matters, who found no anomalies to warrant a fresh enquiry. Lastly, the approach of the writ petitioner in seeking redressal of the matter raises substantial doubt, inasmuch as, by their own admission, they were in receipt of the questionable confidential documents in 2014 itself, but waited until 2017, to initiate any action. A bonafide writ petitioner or a person aggrieved will in the normal course, on a perception of violation of any right or aware of a wrong doing that affects him, will at once seek redressal. The writ petitioner by purportedly waiting for their sources of information to be unavailable before pursuing any remedy, have by themselves rendered their own claim stale. 19. Though, arguable and the debatable questions have been raised, as to the procedure, method and process by which the exercise of promotions has been conducted by the respondents, in view of the reasons aforementioned, this Court does not deem it fit to direct for any further enquiry as prayed for, and leaves it to the respondents themselves to take any further action in this regard, if deemed necessary. 20. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. 21. No order as to costs.